Chapter LXVI: Act 46: , Parl. 3, Act 106, Parl. 7, Act 24, Parl. 11, King James VI., do (42)

At the Reformation, in the “Reformatio Legum,” it was proposed to invest rural deans with certain legal powers, but nothing was done in this respect. In the provincial synod of convocation, held in London, April 3, 1571, it was ordained, that “the archdeacon, when he hath finished his visitation, shall signify to the bishop what clergymen he hath found in every deanery so well endowed with learning and judgment, as to be worthy to instruct the people in sermons, and to rule and preside over others; out of these the bishop may choose such as he will have to be rural deans.”

But the office was not much used till of late years, when in most dioceses it has been revived, and decanal chapters have in many places been held with much apparent advantage.

In many foreign churches, archpresbyters, or provosts, seem to have discharged much the same function as the rural deans. The title of _Dean_ however, as employed in this case, is very common in Europe. In most dioceses of Ireland the office has been immemorially operative.

RUTH, THE BOOK OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament.

This book is a kind of appendix to the Book of Judges, and an introduction to the Books of Samuel, and is therefore properly placed between them. It has its title from the person whose story is here principally related. The Jews make but one book of this and the Book of Judges, and probably the same person was the author of both. It was certainly written at a time when the government by judges had ceased, since the author of it begins with observing, that the fact came to pass in the days when the judges ruled: and he ends his book with a genealogy, which he carries down to David. Probably it was composed in that king’s time, before he was advanced to the throne.

The history recorded in this book, is that of Ruth, a Moabitish woman, who, coming to Bethlehem, and being married to Boaz her kinsman, bare to him Obed, who was the grandfather of David. In this story are observable the ancient rights of kindred and redemption, and the manner of buying the inheritance of the deceased; with other particulars of great note and antiquity.

It is difficult to determine under what judge the history of Ruth happened. Some place it in the government of Ehud or Shamgar; and others about the beginning of the time when Eli judged Israel.

SABAOTH. A Hebrew word, signifying _hosts_ or _armies_. JEHOVAH SABAOTH is the LORD of Hosts. “Holy, holy, holy, LORD GOD of Sabaoth.”

SABBATARIANS, are so called from their keeping the seventh day of the week as the sabbath; whilst Christians in general keep the first day of the week, or Sunday, in memory of our SAVIOUR’S having risen that day from the dead. On the continent they are generally, but improperly, called Israelites. It is uncertain when they first made their appearance; but we learn from Fuller that there were Sabbatarians in 1633.

They object to the reasons which are generally alleged for keeping the first day; and they insist that the change of the sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, did not take place till the beginning of the fourth century, when it was effected by the emperor Constantine, on his conversion to Christianity. A summary of their principles, as to this article of the sabbath, by which they stand distinguished, is contained in the three following propositions:—1. That GOD has required the observance of the seventh, or last, day of every week, to be observed by mankind universally for the weekly sabbath. 2. That this command of GOD is perpetually binding on man till time shall be no more. And 3. That this sacred rest of the seventh day sabbath, is not changed by Divine authority, from the seventh and last to the first day of the week; or, that the Scripture nowhere requires the observance of any other day of the week for the weekly sabbath, but the seventh day only, which is still kept by the Jews, to whom the law on this subject was given. These are much more consistent in their rejection of all the subsidiary helps of antiquity in interpreting the Scriptures, than those Protestants who observe the first day of the week with Judaical strictness.

SABBATH, REST. Sabbath day, the day of rest. The sabbath day, strictly speaking, is Saturday, the observance of which is not considered obligatory by Christians. But the term is sometimes applied to the LORD’S day, which is regarded as a feast by the Church universal. (See _Lord’s Day_.)

SABELLIANS, were so called from Sabellius, a presbyter, or, according to others, a bishop of Libya, who was the founder of the sect.

Sabellius flourished early in the third century, and his doctrine seems to have had many followers for a short time. Its growth, however, was soon checked by the opposition made to it by Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, and the sentence of condemnation pronounced upon its author by Pope Dionysius, in a council held at Rome, A. D. 263.

Sabellius taught that there was but one person in the GODHEAD; and, in confirmation of this doctrine, he made use of this comparison: as a man, though composed of body and soul, is but one person, so GOD, though he is FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST, is but one person. Hence the Sabellians reduced the three persons in the TRINITY to three characters or relations, and maintained that the WORD and HOLY SPIRIT are only virtues, emanations, or functions of the Deity; that he who is in heaven is the FATHER of all things; that he descended into the Virgin, became a child, and was born of her as a son; and that, having accomplished the mystery of our redemption, he diffused himself upon the apostles in tongues of fire, and was then denominated the HOLY GHOST.

Between the system of Sabellianism and what is termed the _indwelling_ scheme, there appears to be a considerable resemblance, if it be not precisely the same, differently explained. The indwelling scheme is chiefly founded on a false and unauthorized sense of that passage in the New Testament, where the apostle, speaking of CHRIST, says, “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the GODHEAD bodily.” Dr. Watts, towards the close of his life, introduced the Sabellian heresy, and wrote several pieces in its defence. His sentiments on the TRINITY appear to have been, that “the GODHEAD, the DEITY itself, personally distinguished as the FATHER, was united to the man CHRIST JESUS, in consequence of which union or indwelling of the GODHEAD he became properly GOD.” Mr. Palmer observes that Dr. Watts conceived this union to have subsisted before the SAVIOUR’S appearance in the flesh, and that the human soul of CHRIST existed with the FATHER from before the foundation of the world; on which ground he maintains the real descent of CHRIST from heaven to earth, and the whole scene of his humiliation, which he thought incompatible with the common opinion concerning him. Dr. Doddridge is supposed to have entertained the same sentiments.

SACRAMENT. (See _Seven Sacraments_.) In classical writers, observes Bishop Kaye, in his learned treatise on Tertullian, the word _sacramentum_ means an oath or promise ratified by a sacred or religious ceremony: thus, the oath taken by the military was called _sacramentum_. In strict conformity with this, its original signification, it is used to express the promise made by Christians in baptism. From the oath the transition was easy to the ceremony by which it was ratified. Thus _sacramentum_ came to signify any religious ordinance, and in general to stand for that which in Greek is expressed by the word μυστήριον (mystery), any emblematical notion of a sacred import, any external act having an internal or secret meaning. If the word is understood in this extended sense, the Romanists are clearly wrong in confining the title to only seven rites or ordinances. The first who did this was probably the celebrated Master of the Sentences [Peter Lombard, in the twelfth century]. Certain it is that the number of seven sacraments was first decreed by Eugenius in the fifteenth century, that the first provincial council which confirmed the decree was one convened in the sixteenth century, and that the first council, even pretending to be general, that adopted it with an anathema was the Council of Trent.

This is, in fact, our dispute on this point with Rome. If the Romanists take the word _sacrament_ in its enlarged sense, then they ought not to confine it, as they do, to seven rites; if they take it in its strict sense, then they ought to confine it to two, baptism and the supper of the LORD. Taking the word in its general sense, the Church of England directs the clergy to speak to the people of matrimony as a sacrament. “By the like holy promise _the sacrament of matrimony_ knitteth man and wife in perpetual love,” &c.—_Homily on Swearing_, part i. The Church of England in this sense acknowledges other rites to be sacraments besides baptism and the eucharist. (See below, the extract from the Homily, _Of Common Prayer and Sacraments_.) This is a very important distinction: “Let it be clearly understood,” says Bishop Jeremy Taylor, “it is none of the doctrine of the Church of England that there are two sacraments _only_, but that of those rituals commanded in Scripture, which ecclesiastical use calls sacraments, by a word of art, two only _are generally necessary to salvation_.”—_Taylor’s Dissuasive_, p. 240. In like manner Archbishop Secker says, “As the word sacrament is not a Scripture one, and hath at different times been differently understood, our catechism doth not require it to be said absolutely that the sacraments are _two only_, but _two only necessary to salvation_; leaving persons at liberty to comprehend more things under the name if they please, provided they insist not on the necessity of them, and of dignifying them with this title.”—_Secker’s Lectures_, xxxv. _Of Baptism_. It will be seen that this is in accordance with the answer in the catechism to the question, How many sacraments has CHRIST ordained in his Church? the answer being not simply _two_, but “two only as generally necessary to salvation.”

We have said that the distinction is important, for it enables us to take high ground on this doctrine. It is not by depressing the other ordinances of the Church which Cranmer and Taylor call sacramentals, but by placing baptism and the eucharist in their proper place and dignity, that we best defend the English Church on this point. If, with the latitudinarians, we depress the proper sacraments and make baptism a mere ceremony, and the eucharist only a more solemn form of self-dedication or worship, our controversy becomes a childish dispute about words. Not so if we distinguish, with the Church of England, baptism and the eucharist from all other ordinances, because they are, what the others are not, necessary for salvation to all men, wherever they can be had. Other ordinances may confer grace, but baptism and the eucharist alone unite with CHRIST himself. “By baptism we receive CHRIST JESUS, and from him the saving grace which is proper to baptism; by the eucharist we receive him also imparting therein himself, and that grace which the eucharist properly bestows.” Again; baptism and the eucharist are what none of the other ordinances are, federal rites, the one for initiating, the other for renewing the covenant of grace, instituted for a reciprocal communion between GOD and man, of blessings on the one part and duty on the other; they are not merely a means to an end, but they are actually a part of our moral and Christian holiness, piety, and perfection; “as much a part of virtue,” says Dr. Waterland, “as the performance of any moral duty is, as much as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked,” &c.

From what has been said it will be seen,

1. That, in the large acceptation of the word sacrament, there are many more sacraments than seven.

2. That, in the strict definition of the word, there are only two, baptism and the eucharist.

But we may sum up the whole in the words which the Church of England uses in one of the homilies: “You shall hear how many sacraments there be, that were instituted by our SAVIOUR CHRIST, and are to be continued, and received of every Christian in due time and order, and for such purpose as our SAVIOUR CHRIST willed them to be received. And as for the number of them, if they should be considered according to the exact signification of a sacrament, namely, for visible signs, expressly commanded in the New Testament, _whereunto is annexed the promise of forgiveness of our sins, and of our holiness, and joining in_ CHRIST, there be but two, namely, baptism and the supper of the LORD. For, _although absolution hath the promise of forgiveness of sin_, yet by the express word of the New Testament it hath not this promise annexed and tied to the visible sign, which is imposition of hands. For this visible sign (I mean laying on of hands) is not expressly commanded in the New Testament to be used in absolution, as the visible sign in baptism and the LORD’S supper are; and therefore absolution is no _such_ sacrament as baptism and the communion are. And though the ordering of ministers hath this visible sign and promise, yet it lacks the promise of remission of sin as all other sacraments besides the two above-named do. Therefore neither it, nor any other sacrament else, be such sacraments as baptism and the communion are. _But in a general acceptation, the name of a sacrament may be attributed to anything; whereby an holy thing is signified._ In which understanding of the word, the ancient writers have given this name, not only to the other five, commonly of late years taken and used for supplying the number of the seven sacraments, but also to divers and sundry other ceremonies, as to oil, washing of feet, and such like, not meaning thereby to repute them as sacraments, in the same signification that the two forenamed sacraments are. And therefore St. Augustine, weighing the true signification and exact meaning of the word, writing to Januarius, and also in the third book of Christian doctrine, affirmeth, that the sacraments of the Christians, as they are most excellent in signification, so are they most few in number, and in both places maketh mention expressly of two, the sacrament of baptism and the supper of the LORD. And although there are retained by order of the Church of England, besides these two, certain other rites and ceremonies about the institution of ministers in the Church, matrimony, confirmation of children, by examining them of their knowledge in the articles of the faith, and joining thereto the prayers of the Church for them, and likewise for the visitation of the sick; yet no man ought to take these for sacraments in _such signification and meaning_ as the sacraments of baptism and the LORD’S supper are.”—_Homily of Common Prayer and Sacraments._

A sacrament is defined in the catechism, in the strict sense, as “an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by CHRIST himself as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof.”

1. There must be an outward and visible sign, the solemn application of some bodily and sensible thing or action to a meaning and purpose which in its own nature it hath not. In common life, we have many other signs to express our meanings, on occasions of great consequence, besides words. And no wonder then if, in religion, we have some of the same kind.

2. In a sacrament, the outward and visible sign must denote “an inward and spiritual grace given unto us;” that is, some favour freely bestowed on us from heaven, by which our inward and spiritual condition, the state of our souls, is made better. Most of the significative actions that we use in religion express only our duty to GOD. Thus, kneeling in prayer is used to show our reverence towards him to whom we pray. And signing a child with the cross, after it is baptized, declares our obligation not to be ashamed of the cross of CHRIST. But a sacrament, besides expressing on our part duty to GOD, expresses on his part some grace or favour towards us.

3. In order to entitle anything to the name of sacrament, a further requisite is, that it be “ordained by CHRIST himself.” We may indeed use, on the foot of human authority alone, actions that set forth either our sense of any duty, or our belief in GOD’S grace. For it is certainly as lawful to express a good meaning by any other proper sign as by words. But then, such marks as these, which we commonly call ceremonies, as they are taken up at pleasure, may be laid aside again at pleasure; and ought to be laid aside whenever they grow too numerous, or abuses are made of them which cannot easily be reformed; and this hath frequently been the case. But sacraments are of perpetual obligation, for they stand on the authority of CHRIST, who hath certainly appointed nothing to be for ever observed in his Church but what he saw would be for ever useful.

Nor doth every appointment of CHRIST, though it be of perpetual obligation, deserve the name of a sacrament, but those, and no other, which are, 4. Not only signs of grace, but means also, whereby we receive the same. None but our blessed LORD could appoint such means; and which of his ordinances should be such, and which not, none but himself could determine. From his word, therefore, we are to learn it; and then, as we hope to attain the end, we must use the means. But when it is said that the sacraments are means of grace, we are not to understand either that the performance of the mere outward action doth, by its own virtue, produce a spiritual effect in us, or that GOD hath annexed any such effect to that alone; but that he will accompany the action with his blessing, provided it be done as it ought, with those qualifications which he requires. And therefore, unless we fulfil the condition, we must not expect the benefit.

Further, calling the sacraments means of grace, doth not signify them to be means by which we merit grace; for nothing but the sufferings of our blessed SAVIOUR can do that for us; but means by which what he hath merited is conveyed to us.

Nor yet are they the only means of conveying grace; for reading, and hearing, and meditating upon the word of GOD, are part of the things which he hath appointed for this end; and prayer is another part, accompanied with an express promise, that, if we “ask, we shall receive.” (John xvi. 24.) But these, not being such actions as figure out and represent the benefits which they derive to us, though they are means of grace, are not signs of it, and therefore do not come under the notion of sacraments.

But, 5. A sacrament is not only a sign or representation of some heavenly favour, and a means whereby we receive it, but also “a pledge to assure us thereof.” Not that anything can give us a greater assurance, in point of reason, of any blessing from GOD, than his bare promise can do; but that such observances, appointed in token of his promises, affect our imaginations with a stronger sense of them, and make a deeper and more lasting, and therefore more useful, impression on our minds. For this cause, in all nations of the world, representations by action have ever been used, as well as words, upon solemn occasions; especially upon entering into and renewing treaties and covenants with each other. And therefore, in condescension to a practice which, being so universal among men, appears to be founded in the nature of man, GOD hath graciously added to his covenant also the solemnity of certain outward instructive performances, by which he declares to us, that, as surely as our bodies are washed by water, and nourished by bread broken and wine poured forth and received, so surely are our souls purified from sin by the baptism of repentance, and strengthened in all goodness by partaking of that mercy which the wounding of the body of CHRIST and the shedding of his blood hath obtained for us. And thus these religious actions, so far as they are performed by GOD’S minister, in pursuance of his appointment, are an earnest or pledge on his part, which was one ancient signification of the word sacrament; and, so far as we join in them, they are an obligation, binding like an oath on our part, which was the other primitive meaning of the word.—_Abp. Secker._

SACRAMENTALS. (See _Sacrament_.) A name conveniently given to those rites which are of a sacramental character,—such as confirmation and matrimony,—but are not sacraments in the proper and strict sense, as baptism and the holy eucharist.

SACRAMENTARY. In the Romish Church, a book containing the collects, together with the _canon_, i. e. that part of the Communion Office which is invariable, whatever changes might occur in the other portions of the service.

SACRIFICE. (See _Mass, the Sacrifice of_.) An offering made to GOD. In strictness of speech, there has been but one sacrifice, once offered, and never to be repeated, the sacrifice of the death of our LORD JESUS CHRIST. He suffered death upon the cross for our redemption, and there, by the one oblation of himself, once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world, was once made, and once for all. (See _Covenant of Redemption_.) But, figuratively speaking, all Divine worship was anciently called a sacrifice—a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; but more especially has this term been applied to the celebration of the eucharist. Justin Martyr, says Dr. Waterland, is the first we meet with who speaks of the eucharist under the name of sacrifice or sacrifices. But he does it so often, and so familiarly, that one cannot but conceive that it had been in common use for some time before; and it is the more likely to have been so, because oblation (which is near akin to it) certainly was.

Irenæus, of the same [the second] century, mentions the sacrifice of the eucharist more than once, either directly or obliquely. Tertullian, not many years later, does the like. Cyprian also speaks of the sacrifice in the eucharist, understanding it in one particular passage of the lay-oblation. This is not the place to examine critically what the ancients meant by the sacrifice or sacrifices of the eucharist. But, as _oblation_ anciently was understood sometimes of the lay-offering, the same may be observed of _sacrifice_; and it is plain from Cyprian. Besides that notion of sacrifice, there was another, and a principal one, which was conceived to go along with the eucharistical service, and that was the notion of _spiritual_ sacrifice, consisting of many particulars, and it was on the account of one, or both, that the eucharist had the name of sacrifice for the two first centuries. But by the middle of the third century, if not sooner, it began to be called a sacrifice, on account of the grand sacrifice represented and commemorated in it; the sign, as such, now adopting the name of the thing signified. In short, the memorial at length came to be called a sacrifice, as well as an oblation: and it had a double claim to be so called; partly as it was in itself a spiritual service or sacrifice, and partly as it was a representation and commemoration of the high tremendous sacrifice of CHRIST GOD-MAN. This last view of it, being of all the most awful and most endearing, came by degrees to be the most prevailing acceptation of the Christian sacrifice, as held forth in the eucharist. But those who styled the eucharist a sacrifice on that account took care, as often as need was, to explain it off to a memorial of a sacrifice, rather than a strict or proper sacrifice, in that precise view. Cyprian is the first who plainly and directly styles the eucharist a sacrifice in the commemorative view, and as representing the grand sacrifice. Not that there was anything new in the doctrine, but there was a new application of an old name, which had at the first been brought in upon other accounts.—_Waterland._

Bishop Burnet remarks, that Christian writers called the eucharist an _unbloody sacrifice_, as being a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; and adds, “In two other respects it may be also more strictly called a sacrifice: one is, because there is an oblation of bread and wine made in it, which being sanctified, are consumed in an act of religion: to this many passages in the writings of the Fathers do relate. Another respect in which the eucharist is called a sacrifice is, because it is a commemoration and a representation to GOD, of the sacrifice that CHRIST offered for us on the cross; in which we lay claim to that as to our expiation, and feast upon it as our peace-offering, according to that ancient notion, that covenants were by a sacrifice, and were concluded in a feast on the sacrifice. Upon these accounts we do not deny, but that the eucharist may be well called a sacrifice; but still it is a commemorative sacrifice, and not propitiatory,” &c.—_Burnet._

The ancients, says Bishop Cosin, called the whole communion “the sacrifice of praise,” as our Church doth: whereas the Romanists only call it a sacrifice, without any other addition. But it is not the sacrifice of CHRIST which we here speak of; for that is always pleasing to GOD, and was absolutely perfect: but it is our own peace-offering, in commemoration thereof, in which there have been many failings, and therefore we desire and beg that it may be accepted in mercy.—_Dean Comber._ In this regard, and in divers others also, the eucharist may, by allusion and analogy, be fitly called “a sacrifice,” and the LORD’S table “an altar;” the one relating to the other, though neither of them can be strictly and properly so termed. It is the custom of Scripture to describe the service of GOD under the New Testament, be it either internal or external, by the terms which otherwise belonged to the Old: as, immolation, offering, sacrifice, and altar. So the evangelical prophet Isaiah, foretelling the glory and amplitude of the Christian Church, speaketh of GOD’S altar which shall be there, upon which “an acceptable offering shall be made.” (See also Rom. xv. 16; Phil. ii. 17; Heb. xiii. 10.) And indeed the sacrament of the eucharist carries the name of a sacrifice, and the table, whereon it is celebrated, an altar of oblation, in a far higher sense than any of their former sacrifices did, which were but the types and figures of those services that are performed in recognition and memory of CHRIST’S one sacrifice, once offered upon the altar of his cross. The prophecy of Malachi concerning the Church under the New Testament, (see Mal. i. 10,) applied by the doctors of the Roman Church to their proper sacrifice, as they call it, of the mass, is interpreted and applied by the ancient Fathers, sometimes in general to all the acts of our Christian religion, and sometimes in particular to the eucharist: that is, the act of our prayers and thanksgiving for the sacrifice of CHRIST once made for us upon the cross, as here we use in the Church of England. The Church of England therefore herein followeth the Holy Scripture and the ancient Fathers. (See also Heb. xiii. 16; Rev. viii 3; Ps. cxli. 2.)—_Bp. Cosin._

Under which name of the Christian sacrifice, says Joseph Mede, first know, that the ancient Church understood not, as many suppose, the mere sacrament of the body and blood of CHRIST, but the whole sacred action or solemn service of the Church assembled, whereof this sacred mystery was then a prime and principal part, and, as it were, the pearl or jewel of this ring, no public service of the Church being without it. This observed and remembered, I define the Christian sacrifice, _ex mente antiquæ ecclesiæ_, in this manner: An oblation of thanksgiving and prayer to GOD the FATHER through JESUS CHRIST, and his sacrifice commemorated in the creatures of bread and wine, wherewith GOD had first been agnized. So that this sacrifice, as you see, hath a double object, or matter; first, praise and prayer, which you may call _sacrificium quod_. Secondly, the commemoration CHRIST’S sacrifice on the cross, which is _sacrificium quo_, the sacrifice whereby the other is accepted. For all the prayers, thanksgivings, and devotions of a Christian are tendered up unto GOD in the name of JESUS CHRIST crucified. According whereunto we are wont to conclude our prayers with “through JESUS CHRIST our LORD.” And this is the specification, whereby the worship of a Christian is distinguished from that of the Jew. Now that which we, in all our prayers and thanksgivings, do vocally, when we say _per Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum_, the ancient Church, in her public and solemn service, did visibly by representing him, according as he commanded, in the symbols of his body and blood: for there he is commemorated and received by us for the same end for which he was given and suffered for us; that through him, we receiving forgiveness of our sins, GOD our FATHER might accept our service and hear our prayers we make unto him.

What time then so fit and seasonable to commend our devotions unto GOD, as when the LAMB of GOD lies slain upon the holy table, and we receive visibly, though mystically, those gracious pledges of his blessed body and blood. This was that sacrifice of the ancient Church, which the Fathers so much ring in our ears. The sacrifice of praise and prayer through JESUS CHRIST, mystically represented in the creatures of bread and wine.

But yet there is one thing more my definition intimates, when I say, “through the sacrifice of JESUS CHRIST, commemorated in the creatures of bread and wine, wherewith GOD had first been agnized.” The body and blood of CHRIST were not made of common bread and common wine, but of bread and wine first sanctified by being offered and set before GOD as a present, to agnize him the LORD and giver of all: according to that, _Domini est terra et plenitudo ejus_: and “let no man appear before the LORD empty.” Therefore, as this sacrifice consisted of two parts, as I told you, of praise and prayer, which, in respect of the other, I call _sacrificium quod_; and of the commemoration of CHRIST crucified, which I call _sacrificium quo_; so the symbols of bread and wine traversed both, being first presented as symbols of praise and thanksgiving to agnize GOD the LORD of the creature in the _sacrificium quod_; then, by invocation of the HOLY GHOST, made the symbols of the body and blood of CHRIST in the _sacrificium quo_. So that the whole service throughout consisted of a reasonable part and of a material part, as of a soul and a body; of which I shall speak more fully hereafter, when I come to prove this, I have said, by the testimonies of the ancients.

Again, the LORD’S supper is a sacrifice, according to the style of the ancient Church.

It is one thing to say, that the LORD’S supper is a sacrifice, and another to say, that CHRIST is properly sacrificed therein. These are not the same; for there may be a sacrifice, which is a representation of another, and yet a sacrifice too: and such is this of the New Testament, a sacrifice wherein another sacrifice, that of CHRIST’S death upon the cross, is commemorated: thus the Papists gain nothing by this notion of antiquity, and our asserting the same; for their tenet is, that CHRIST in this sacrifice is really and properly sacrificed, which we shall show in due time that the ancients never meant.

To begin with this: as in the Old Testament the name of sacrifice was otherwhile given to the whole action in which the rite was used; sometimes to the rite alone; so in the notion and language of the ancient Church, sometimes the whole action of Christian service (wherein the LORD’S supper was a part) is comprehended under that name; sometimes the rite of the sacred supper itself is so termed, and truly, as you shall now hear.

The resolution of this point depends altogether upon the true definition of a sacrifice, as it is distinguished from all other offerings. Which, though it be so necessary, that all disputation without it is vain, yet shall we not find, that either party interested in this question hath been so exact therein as were to be wished. This appears by the differing definitions, given and confuted by divines on both sides; the reason of which defect is, because neither are deduced from the notion of Scripture, but built upon other conceptions: let us see, therefore, if it may be learned out of Scripture, what that is which the Scripture, in a strict and special sense, calls a sacrifice.

Every sacrifice is an oblation or offering: but every offering is not a sacrifice, in that strict and proper acceptation we seek. For tithes, first-fruits, heave-offerings in the law, and whatsoever indeed is consecrated unto GOD, are oblations or offerings; but none of them sacrifices, nor ever so called in the Old Testament. What offerings are then called so? I answer, burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, trespass-offerings, and peace-offerings. These, and no other, are called by that name.

Out of these, therefore, must we pick the true and proper ratio of a sacrifice: it is true, indeed, that these sacrifices were offerings of beasts, of beeves, of sheep, of goats, of fowls: but the ratio of anything consists not in the matter thereof; as the gowns we wear are still the same kind of apparel, though made of differing stuffs; these sacrifices also were slain, and offered by fire and incense: but neither is the modus of anything the ratio or essential form thereof. That therefore may have the nature and formale of a sacrifice which consists of another matter, and is offered after another and differing manner: those we call sacraments of the Old Testament, circumcision and the passover, were by effusion of blood; ours are not, and yet we esteem them nevertheless true sacraments; and so it may be here.

To hold you, therefore, no longer in suspense, a sacrifice, I think, should be defined thus: an offering, whereby the offerer is made partaker of his GOD’S table, in token of covenant and friendship with him, &c.: more explicately thus: an offering unto the Divine Majesty, of that which is given for the food of man; that the offerer, partaking thereof, might, as by way of pledge, be certified of his acceptation into covenant, and fellowship with his GOD, by eating and drinking at his table. St. Augustine comes toward this notion, when he defines a sacrifice (though in a larger sense) _opus quod Deo nuncupamus, reddimus, et dedicamus, hoc fine, ut sanctâ societate ipsi adhæreamus_: for to have society and fellowship with GOD, what is it else but to be in league and covenant with him?

In a word, a sacrifice is _oblatio fæderalis_.—_Joseph Mede._

SACRIFICATI. Christians who, to avoid condemnation before a heathen tribunal, offered sacrifice to an idol. When such persons, after the persecution was over, returned to the profession of CHRIST, they were obliged to undergo a very rigid penance before they could be re-admitted into the Church. It must be observed that _Sacrificati_ is their denomination as penitents, after their return to the faith. Those who continued in idolatry were simply apostates. (See _Libellatici_ and _Thurificati_.)

SACRILEGE. The act of violating sacred things, or subjecting them to profanation; or the desecration of objects consecrated to GOD. Thus the robbing of churches or of graves, the abuse of sacred vessels and altars, by employing them for unhallowed purposes, the plundering and misappropriation of alms and donations, &c., are acts of sacrilege which, in the ancient Church, were punished with great severity.

SACRISTAN. The person to whose charge the sacred vestments, &c., in a church, are committed; now corrupted to _sexton_, which see. The sacristan is a dignitary in some foreign cathedrals, as was formerly the case at Glasgow, and the Chapel Royal of Stirling, in Scotland; in both of which places there were treasurers also. In most of the old cathedrals, however, the sacrist was the treasurer’s deputy, and a vicar choral. In those of the new foundation the sacrist is a minor canon, and has often the special cure of souls within the precinct. In Ireland the sacrist at Elphin was a dignitary, now usually styled _Treasurer_.—_Jebb._

SACRISTY. The place in which sacred vestments, &c. are kept, answering to the modern vestry.

SADDUCEES. A famous sect among the Jews; so called, it is said, from their founder, Sadoc. It began in the time of Antigonus, of Socho, president of the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, and teacher of the law in the principal divinity school of that city. Antigonus, having often in his lectures inculcated to his scholars that they ought not to serve GOD in a servile manner, but only out of filial love and fear, two of his scholars, Sadoc and Baithus, thence inferred that there were no rewards at all after this life; and, therefore, separating from the school of their master, they thought there was no resurrection nor future state, neither angel nor spirit. (Matt. xxii. 23; Acts xxiii. 8.) They seem to agree greatly with the Epicureans; differing however in this, that though they denied a future state, yet they allowed the power of GOD to create the world; whereas the followers of Epicurus denied it. It is said, also, that they rejected the Bible, except the Pentateuch; denied predestination, and taught that GOD had made man absolute master of all his actions, without assistance to good, or restraint from evil.

SAINT. (See _Communion of Saints_, _Invocation of Saints_.) A person either in the flesh or out of it, who is made holy by the indwelling of the HOLY SPIRIT. The apostles in their Epistles use this word simply for baptized believers, that is, for all Christians.

The word _saints_ is of the same meaning with the word _holy_; and, therefore, comprehends all Christians in the same manner as has been already explained. Having _communion_, is being entitled to partake of benefits and kindnesses, and bound to make suitable returns for them. And thus Christians, or saints, have communion or “fellowship” with “the FATHER, from whom cometh down every good and perfect gift;” with his SON JESUS CHRIST, (1 John i. 3; James i. 17,) through whom forgiveness and mercy is conveyed to us; with the HOLY GHOST, whose sanctifying graces are conferred on such as duly qualify their hearts for the reception of them. And for these blessings we owe all thankfulness and all duty, in thought, word, and deed. Christians have also communion with the holy angels, as these “are ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation” (Heb. i. 14): and undoubtedly we ought to think of what they do for us, with an inward sense of gratitude and love. But, as we are unacquainted with particulars, we can make no particular acknowledgments: nor ought we to make any general ones, by outward expressions of respect; since “worshipping GOD alone” is commanded, (Matt. iv. 10,) and worshipping angels condemned, in Scripture. (Col. ii. 18.)

With respect to those of our own nature, we are bound so far to hold communion even with the worst of unbelievers, as not only to do them every kind of justice, but sincerely to wish, and, if occasion offer, heartily endeavour, their good, both in body and soul. But to all “who have obtained the like precious faith with ourselves,” (2 Pet. i. 1,) we bear a still nearer relation; as being, in a peculiar sense, children of the same Father, disciples of the same Master, animated by the same Spirit, members of the same body. And these things oblige us to the utmost care of preserving, by prudent order and mutual forbearance, as much unity in the Church as we possibly can.

Such, indeed, as obstinately deny the fundamental doctrines, or transgress the fundamental precepts of Christianity, ought to be rejected from Christian communion. But to renounce communicating with any others, who are willing to admit us to it on lawful terms, is the way to cut off ourselves, not them, from the body of CHRIST; who yet, we doubt not, will allow those on both sides to belong to his Church, who, through pardonable passions or mistakes, will not allow one another to do so.

And, as we should maintain communion with all proper persons, we should show our disposition to it in all proper ways: attend on the public instructions, join in the public worship, sacraments, and discipline, which our LORD hath appointed, and keep the whole of them pure from all forbidden or suspicious alterations or mixtures; avoid, with great care, both giving and taking needless offence, in respect to these or any matters; and by all fit means “edify one another in love” (Rom. xiv. 19; Eph. iv. 16): “obeying those who are set over us;” condescending to those who are beneath us; esteeming and honouring the wise and virtuous; teaching and admonishing the ignorant and faulty; bearing with the weak, relieving the poor, and comforting the afflicted.

Nor have we _communion_ only with the _saints_ on earth, but are of one city and one family with such as are already got safe to heaven. Doubtless, they exercise that _communion_ towards us by loving and praying for the brethren whom they have left behind them. And we are to exercise it towards them, not by addressing petitions to them, which we are neither authorized to offer, nor have any grounds to think they can hear; but by rejoicing in their happiness; thanking GOD for the grace which he hath bestowed on them, and the examples which they have left us; holding their memories in honour, imitating their virtues, and beseeching the Disposer of all things, that, having followed them in holiness here, we may meet them in happiness hereafter; and become, in the fullest sense, “fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of GOD” (Eph. ii. 19); “having, with all those that are departed in the true faith of his holy name, our perfect consummation and bliss, both in body and soul, in his eternal and everlasting glory, through JESUS CHRIST our LORD, Amen.” (See _Burial Office_.)—_Abp. Secker._

SAINTS’ DAYS. (See _Feasts_.) Two of the most ancient monuments of ecclesiastical history that we possess, except the New Testament, are the accounts of the martyrdom of Ignatius and Polycarp, both disciples of St. John, written, at the time of their suffering, by the Churches of Antioch and Smyrna, of which they were bishops: and in those they mention, as of course, their purpose of celebrating yearly the festival of their birthdays, of their entrance into a better life, for the commemoration of their excellent graces, and the incitement of others to imitate them. Thus did they provide that the “righteous should be in everlasting remembrance,” (Ps. cxii. 6,) and observed the more particular direction given to that intent in the Epistle to the Hebrews, “Remember them which have (had) the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of GOD; whose faith follow, considering the end,” the event, “of their conversation.” (Heb. xiii. 7.) The rest of the primitive Churches appear to have followed the same rule; and each to have honoured the more eminent of their own martyrs, who had been usually their teachers also, by anniversary assemblies for preserving the reverence due to their characters, and offering up thanks to GOD for their examples.

But the increase of their numbers, and the adoption of the sufferers of one Church into the liturgies of another, and the admission of eminently good persons, who had “not resisted unto blood,” (Heb. xii. 4,) and the frequent grants which in subsequent ages were made, of so high a distinction, with little care of previous inquiry, multiplied the returns of these solemnities very improperly and inconveniently. Then, besides, a still greater evil was, that praises and panegyrics too soon grew to be immoderate, and afterwards impious. In the vehemence of national encomiums and exclamations, the saint was called upon as present, until at length he was thought so; and what at first was merely a bold and moving figure of speech, became at length in good earnest a prayer: which requested of a dead man, who was not able to hear it, not only that he would intercede with GOD on behalf of his fellow-servants, but that he would himself bestow such blessings upon them, as no creature hath in his power. Things being found in this condition at the Reformation, it was necessary both to abolish entirely these unlawful addresses, and to limit the original sort of commemorations to a moderate list of persons, indisputably worthy of them. Accordingly no day is appointed by our Church for the celebration of any other than the principal saints mentioned in the New Testament, it being hard to stop, if more were added. And amongst these, St. Stephen is the only one who stands solely on the foot of being a martyr; as indeed it was fit that the foremost, the leader, of that “noble army” should be distinguished, and chosen, as it were, to represent the rest.—_Abp. Secker._

When a Sunday and a saint’s day coincide, on the question what service shall be used, see the extracts from Shepherd and Bishop Cosin in the article _Lessons_.

SALUTATION. Having all repeated our creed together, and thereby given good proof that we are members of the Catholic Church, and such as have a right to join in the prayers thereof, we now prepare ourselves to pray. And since salutations have ever been the expressions and badges of that mutual charity, without which we are not fit to pray, therefore we begin with an ancient form of salutation, taken out of Holy Scripture: the minister commencing, salutes the people with “The LORD be with you,” (Ruth ii. 4; Ps. cxxii. 8; 2 Thess. iii. 16,) and they return it with a like prayer, “And with thy spirit,” (2 Tim. iv. 22,) which words have been of early use in the Christian liturgies; and indeed the phrase is the very words of St. Paul; and St. John forbids us to say to any heretic “GOD speed.” (2 John, ver. 10, 11.) But when the minister hath heard every one in the congregation repeat his faith, and seen, by their standing up at it, a testimony of their assent to it, he can now safely salute them all as brethren and members of the true Church; and surely, as difference in religion creates great animosities, so agreement in one faith is an excellent means to beget charity, and to make minister and people heartily pray for one another: the people are going to pray, which they cannot do without GOD’S help, and therefore the minister prays that “the LORD may be with them,” to assist them in the duty, according to that gracious promise of our SAVIOUR, that when two or three are met to pray, he will be with them. (Matt, xviii. 20.) And since the minister prays for all the people, and is their mouth to GOD, they desire he may, heartily and devoutly, offer up these prayers in their behalf, saying, “The LORD be with thy spirit.”—_Dean Comber._

By a man’s spirit in Scripture phrase is frequently meant the man himself. So that the people do in reality answer thus: May GOD be with thee, as thou desirest he may be with us, in the oblation of our joint prayers. In this sense the word is used in the place whence this form is borrowed. (2 Tim. iv. 22.)—_Dr. Bennet._

Till every person has finished the repetition of the creed, and there is silence in the whole congregation, the minister should not pronounce the words, “The LORD be with you.” These words ought also to be pronounced by the minister in a standing posture, they being addressed to the people. And after the people have returned their answer, the minister should still stand and pronounce these words, “Let us pray;” and then give the people time enough to kneel down, that there may not be the least noise, and every person may be perfectly composed, and ready to join, when the minister begins the prayers.

And because these words, “The LORD be with you,” and the reply of the people, “And with thy spirit;” and those also, “Let us pray,” are all of them directed and spoken, not to Almighty GOD, but only to men; namely, by the minister and people alternately to each other; therefore care should be taken that a difference be made in the tone of voice between these short forms of mutual compellation, and the prayers themselves.—_Dr. Bennet._

In the Romish Church the _angelical salutation_, as they call it, consists of the angel’s salutation, and that of Elizabeth. It runs thus: _Ave Maria, gratiæ plena: Dominus tecum: benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui. Sancta Maria, mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in horâ mortis nostræ. Amen._

The latter clause, _Sancta Maria, mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus_, was added, they tell us, in the fifth century; but the last words, _nunc et in horâ mortis nostræ_, were inserted by order of Pope Pius V.

Urban II. ordered a bell to be tolled three times a day to put the people in mind of repeating this salutation, that GOD might prosper the Christian arms in the recovery of the Holy Land; which custom, having continued about 134 years, fell at length into neglect; till Gregory IX. revived it, with the addition of a constant noon-bell.

The repeating of this salutation at the beginning of the sermon was first enjoined by St. Dominic, or, as some will have it, by Vincent Ferrerius. (See _Idolatry_ and _Mariolatry_.)

SALVATION (see _Covenant of Redemption_) is taken in Scripture, 1. For deliverance or victory over outward dangers and enemies. (Exod. xiv. 13; 1 Sam. xiv. 45.) 2. For remission of sins, true faith, repentance, and obedience, and other saving graces of the SPIRIT, which are the way to salvation. (Luke xix. 9.) “This day is salvation come to this house.” 3. For eternal happiness hereafter, which is the object of our hopes and desires. Thus it is said, “to give knowledge of salvation to his people.” (Luke i. 77.) “Godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation.” (2 Cor. vii. 10.) And the gospel is called, the “gospel of salvation,” (Eph. i. 13,) because it brings the good news that salvation is to be had; it offers salvation to lost sinners; it shows upon what terms it may be had, and the way how to attain it; it also fits for salvation, and at last brings to it. 4. For the author of salvation. (Ps. xxvii. 1.) “The LORD is my light and my salvation,” he is my counsellor in all my difficulties, and my comforter and deliverer in all my distresses. 5. For the person who is the SAVIOUR of sinners. (Luke ii. 30.) “Mine eyes have seen thy salvation,” says Simeon; I have seen him whom thou hast sent into the world, to be the author and procurer of salvation to lost sinners. 6. For the praise and benediction that is given to GOD. (Rev. xix. 1.) “Alleluia, salvation and glory and honour and power unto the LORD our GOD.” The Hebrews but rarely made use of concrete terms as they are called; but often of abstracted. Thus, instead of saying, GOD saves men, and protects them, they say, that GOD is their salvation. Thus the word of salvation, the joy of salvation, the rock of salvation, the shield of salvation, the horn of salvation, &c., is as much as to say, The word that declares deliverance; the joys that attend the escaping a great danger; a rock where any one takes refuge, and where he may be in safety from his enemy; a buckler, that secures him from the arm of the enemy; a horn or ray of light, of happiness and salvation, &c.—_Cruden’s Concord._